Whether the introduction of CSAAS testimony is unconstitutional junk science

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. During trial, it was elicited on cross-examination, that the victim told the , investigator she never had sexual contact with Petitioner, and that her mother had told her to lie. . These statements entitled the prosecution to introduce CSAAS testimony. Is’ the introduction of CSAAS testimony a legitimate avenue that is appropriate for the court-room or is it unconstitutional junk science as multiple courts have ruled? 2. During trial, the prosecution presented evidence of a jail recorded phone call. The prosecution also supplied a transcript of the translated conversation to the jury, as the translation was necessary because the conversation that was recorded, was not spoken in English. . > This translation was not verified by a legitimate court translator, and the translation was inaccurate, as it can be seen by the verified translation provided by Petitioner, after trial on Habeas Corpus. Is it unconstitutional to allow a translated transcript to be given to the jury that has not been verified by a legitimate court translator?